Rust's whole concept of an unstable language is terrifying to me as a developer.
I don't want to have to get the latest nightly/unstable version of a compiler ever. In fact, unstable is exactly the opposite of what I want from my compiler or my language specification.
I know that Rust maintains good backwards compatibility. But after two or three rounds of adding "the new hot way to do something", older tutorials and libraries effectively become obsolete/stale. And this can make the language look like a const
The language is too unstable (Score:4, Insightful)
Rust's whole concept of an unstable language is terrifying to me as a developer.
I don't want to have to get the latest nightly/unstable version of a compiler ever. In fact, unstable is exactly the opposite of what I want from my compiler or my language specification.
I know that Rust maintains good backwards compatibility. But after two or three rounds of adding "the new hot way to do something", older tutorials and libraries effectively become obsolete/stale. And this can make the language look like a const
Re:The language is too unstable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. Most of the C++ devs I work with complain about language churn _constantly_, and don't consider this a good thing.